Sikkim High Court: The instant appeal was filed by the appellant (“convict”) challenging his conviction and sentencing by the Sessions Court (Fast Track) under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) for having raped his 80-year-old maternal grandmother on multiple occasions; the Division Bench of Meenakshi Madan Rai*, and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, JJ., perused the evidence and the findings of the Trial Court, upholding the judgment and order of the Trial Court, noted that Trial Court’s reliance on the sole testimony of the victim was confidence-inspiring.
Background: The 24-year old grandson was charged under the afore-stated penal provisions. The Sessions Court upon appreciating the evidence and sole testimony of the victim had passed the impugned order of conviction and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 for each count of rape. The convict was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000 for conviction under Section 506 IPC. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.
Court’s analysis and decision
The Court took note of the appreciation of evidence on record and the observations made by the Trial Court in the impugned order. The Trial Court relying on sole testimony of the victim, had stated that,, “if a court finds that the testimony of a prosecutrix inspires the confidence of the court and is found reliable and trustworthy, then the court can rely on her sole testimony for convicting the accused and need not look for corroboration of her testimony elsewhere.”
The Court also noted the Trial Court’s discussion on the delay in lodging of the FIR, observing that multiple Supreme Court cases have stressed that delay in reporting of cases of rape and sexual assault need not necessarily be fatal to the prosecution case, especially in the instant case where the convict is the victim’s own grandson, where the reluctance to report such event is natural.
The Court further noted the Trial Court’s finding of no reason to disbelief the senior citizen victim, who was unlikely to make such an allegation against her own grandson unless she was not left with any other option.
Therefore, the Court opined that the Trial Court had examined the matter meticulously and found no reason to differ from the Trial Court’s findings.
Hence, the Court upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, thereby disposing of the appeal.
[Mahesh Chettri v. State of Sikkim, 2024 SCC OnLine Sikk 48, decided on 03-07-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: D.K. Siwakoti, Advocate
For the respondent: Shakil Raj Karki, Additional Public Prosecutor
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
